I've said this in a couple other threads, but I don't believe that gun control is going to get any traction in Congress. Some Democrats will push for it, some other Republicans will table it, some pro-gun control folks like myself will cry foul, and yet another Congress will pass without any gun control measures seeing the light of day.

But here's one thing that maybe we can start doing: better educate ourselves on gun violence, so we can stop stabbing in the dark as to what we can better do to mitigate it.

The problem is that for a couple decades now, the government has not been able to produce any information on gun violence because the NRA has been threatening war if Congress failed to choke off all funding for gun-related research.

The CDC and NIH used to conduct research for decades, but around the time of the late 90s, the NRA became so powerful it was able to prevent these agencies from granting funds to researchers on those topics. McClatchy DC:

Quote:

The CDC and NIH award billions in grants. They fund research into cancer, brain injury, tobacco use, obesity, AIDS, abortion, hearing loss, allergies, infectious diseases, back pain and virtually everything else related to human health. But gun violence is the one area that carries that specific language. The effect has been to limit federal funding into research that could be used to shape policy.

This is irresponsible. We pass hundreds of gun-related laws across the country every few years. Like all laws, we should be able to research the impact of the laws we pass, so we can make decisions based on more than pure ideology.

Anyway, there's a ton of stories on this, but here's a really good one from last year in the Times.

In the wake of the shootings in Tucson, the familiar questions inevitably resurfaced: Are communities where more people carry guns safer or less safe? Does the availability of high-capacity magazines increase deaths? Do more rigorous background checks make a difference?

The reality is that even these and other basic questions cannot be fully answered, because not enough research has been done. And there is a reason for that. Scientists in the field and former officials with the government agency that used to finance the great bulk of this research say the influence of the National Rife Association has all but choked off money for such work.

“We’ve been stopped from answering the basic questions,” said Mark Rosenberg, former director of the National Center for Injury Control and Prevention, part of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which was for about a decade the leading source of financing for firearms research.

Chris Cox, the N.R.A.’s chief lobbyist, said his group had not tried to squelch genuine scientific inquiries, just politically slanted ones.

“Our concern is not with legitimate medical science,” Mr. Cox said. “Our concern is they were promoting the idea that gun ownership was a disease that needed to be eradicated.”

The amount of money available today for studying the impact of firearms is a fraction of what it was in the mid-1990s, and the number of scientists toiling in the field has dwindled to just a handful as a result, researchers say.

The dearth of money can be traced in large measure to a clash between public health scientists and the N.R.A. in the mid-1990s. At the time, Dr. Rosenberg and others at the C.D.C. were becoming increasingly assertive about the importance of studying gun-related injuries and deaths as a public health phenomenon, financing studies that found, for example, having a gun in the house, rather than conferring protection, significantly increased the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

Alarmed, the N.R.A. and its allies on Capitol Hill fought back. The injury center was guilty of “putting out papers that were really political opinion masquerading as medical science,” said Mr. Cox, who also worked on this issue for the N.R.A. more than a decade ago.

Initially, pro-gun lawmakers sought to eliminate the injury center completely, arguing that its work was “redundant” and reflected a political agenda. When that failed, they turned to the appropriations process. In 1996, Representative Jay Dickey, Republican of Arkansas, succeeded in pushing through an amendment that stripped $2.6 million from the disease control centers’ budget, the very amount it had spent on firearms-related research the year before.

“It’s really simple with me,” Mr. Dickey, 71 and now retired, said in a telephone interview. “We have the right to bear arms because of the threat of government taking over the freedoms that we have.”

The Senate later restored the money but designated it for research on traumatic brain injury. Language was also inserted into the centers’ appropriations bill that remains in place today: “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”

The prohibition is striking, firearms researchers say, because there are already regulations that bar the use of C.D.C. money for lobbying for or against legislation. No other field of inquiry is singled out in this way.

In the end, researchers said, even though it is murky what exactly is allowed under this provision and what is not, the upshot is clear inside the centers: the agency should tread in this area only at its own peril.

“They had a near-death experience,” said Dr. Arthur Kellermann, whose study on the risks versus the benefits of having guns in the home became a focal point of attack by the N.R.A.

In the years since, the C.D.C. has been exceedingly wary of financing research focused on firearms. In its annual requests for proposals, for example, firearms research has been notably absent. Gail Hayes, spokeswoman for the centers, confirmed that since 1996, while the agency has issued requests for proposals that include the study of violence, which may include gun violence, it had not sent out any specifically on firearms.

“For policy to be effective, it needs to be based on evidence,” said Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis, who had his C.D.C. financing cut in 1996. “The National Rifle Association and its allies in Congress have largely succeeded in choking off the development of evidence upon which that policy could be based.”

Private foundations initially stepped into the breach, but their attention tends to wax and wane, researchers said. They are also much more interested in work that leads to immediate results and less willing to finance basic epidemiological research that scientists say is necessary to establishing a foundation of knowledge about the connection between guns and violence, or the lack thereof.

The National Institute of Justice, part of the Justice Department, also used to finance firearms research, researchers said, but that money has also petered out in recent years. (Institute officials said they hoped to reinvigorate financing in this area.)

Stephen Teret, founding director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, estimated that the amount of money available for firearms research was a quarter of what it used to be. With so much uncertainty about financing, Mr. Teret said, the circle of academics who study the phenomenon has fallen off significantly.

After the centers’ clash with the N.R.A., Mr. Teret said he was asked by C.D.C. officials to “curtail some things I was saying about guns and gun policy.”

Mr. Teret objected, saying his public comments about gun policy did not come while he was on the “C.D.C. meter.” After he threatened to file a lawsuit against the agency, Mr. Teret said, the officials backed down and gave him “a little bit more leeway.”

C.D.C. financing for research on gun violence has not stopped completely, but it is now mostly limited to work in which firearms are only a component.

The centers also ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the N.R.A. as a courtesy, said Thomas Skinner, a spokesman for the centers.

Invariably, researchers said, whenever their work touches upon firearms, the C.D.C. becomes squeamish. In the end, they said, it is often simply easier to avoid the topic if they want to continue to be in the agency’s good graces.

Dr. Stephen Hargarten, professor and chairman of emergency medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin, used to direct a research center, financed by the C.D.C., that focused on gun violence, but he said he had now shifted his attention to other issues.

Some idiot went crazy in China and stabbed 22 children. I believe every single one of them lived, although one is in traction I believe.

I will take requiring a crazy person to use a less dangerous weapon every day of the week. Every day of the week.

Anything to require more effort, more time, having to reload faster, having to reload sooner, having to jump through more hoops, having to know more, having to expose himself more... Anything to make it harder to kill people.

Again you are conflating. The replacement rate was in reference to general homicides not mass killing sprees. Try to keep up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

You've avoided, multiple times now in this thread, to admit what you'd need to see before you can admit we have a gun homicide epidemic.

And we both know why. It's a lot easier to move the goalposts in the face of mounting evidence when you don't have to pre-establish a standard.

And as per your usual course, it's vacuous.

So let's put an end to that silly bullshit and put you on the grid: we kill people 12 times more with guns than the rest of our Western brethren. That's not an epidemic to you?

No it's not an epidemic to me because we have 12X or 50X or any other figure.. when compared to countries where people are sheep like in their passivity. So keep throwing out those figures.. they are MEANINGLESS.

As to an actual number to pass for epidemic status? hmm, I don't know it would have to reach a level to where (absent mass media coverage) 50% or more of Americans would be directly affected by gun homicide at some point in their lives.

Keep the standards the same for ownership, but require more standards to carry.

I have no idea how this is a barrier in any way, shape, or form. Had to feel good to say, though.

It is NOT a barrier in any way, unlike you I don;t see erecting barriers as a good thing nor do I see them as effective. I want higher standards for carrying because I want MORE people carrying... A LOT more. In my perfect world you'd see upwards of 20% of all adults carrying most of the time in most every place. With proper comprehensive training in emergency response, not just guns but also first aid and crisis intervention and management. THAT would make for a lot safer America.

Again you are conflating. The replacement rate was in reference to general homicides not mass killing sprees. Try to keep up.

Again, let's do that shit.

I will take requiring a criminal to use a less dangerous weapon every day of the week. Every day of the week.

Anything to require more effort, more time, having to reload slower, having to reload sooner, having to jump through more hoops, having to know more, having to expose himself more... Anything to make it harder to kill people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

As to an actual number to pass for epidemic status? hmm, I don't know it would have to reach a level to where (absent mass media coverage) 50% or more of Americans would be directly affected by gun homicide at some point in their lives.

Exactly, you have no idea. WTF does 50% of Americans having to be "directly affected" by gun homicide even mean? Everybody was affected by Newtown -- or does our sorrow not count because we're not related to them?

You don't know what line in the sand you'd draw, because you want to retain your ability to move the goalposts any time I present evidence as to how grotesque our gun homicide rates actually are. Yeah, well, they could be *worse*, right?

You have no idea what you're arguing. You're just saying shit because it's fun.

It is NOT a barrier in any way, unlike you I don;t see erecting barriers as a good thing nor do I see them as effective.

Sure you do. You believe we should perform background checks. That's a barrier.

The one different gun control idea you proposed, however, isn't a barrier, it's a beaded curtain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I want higher standards for carrying because I want MORE people carrying... A LOT more. In my perfect world you'd see upwards of 20% of all adults carrying most of the time in most every place. With proper comprehensive training in emergency response, not just guns but also first aid and crisis intervention and management. THAT would make for a lot safer America.

You do understand we have 50% of the planet's guns, 300 million firearms in total.

If you think our problem is that we don't have enough guns in our society, you're simply living in Imagination Land.

Ah, so you've now shrinked from your initial claim that the statistics I presented are not evidence to now saying the statistics I presented are not viable evidence.

Welcome back to logic. Except you're still wrong. Statistics from other Western countries are viable evidence, if we're going to actually apply the English language.

You may not agree that it's relevant enough to apply to our current discussion, but it's certainly viable evidence.

What?? I am shrinking from nothing. I was saying the same thing all along if you could just keep up. Hence why I made the statements I just restated for you. I haven't said anything new here so don't you ****ing DARE try to make it out as if I am now changing my position when you simply couldn't follow along in the first place.

And NO it is not evidence to support your point. You point to "Western" cultures as if you have a ****ing clue. Have YOU ever lived anywhere other than the US? Hell, have you spent any significant time anywhere else? You simply ASSUME that they are cultural the same as us.. or close enough that the stats apply. Well, they aren't. Period. I can tell you story after story about my time overseas and the complete and utter lack of aggression... but of course you will need stats! Well sorry, I have yet to see a pysch study on the phenomenon. I actually have thought this would be an good topic to do studies on. My personal theory is that aggression is part genetic and a great deal of it has simply been bred out of Europe due to the nearly constant state of war they underwent for so many years and the mass amounts of young aggressors that dies before breeding. Totally a guess but it'd be interesting for someone to do a study to see if it has any validity.

Originally Posted by AustinChief:
So, let's deal with just mass shooting sprees. Out of 300 million Americans... please tell me how many in 2012 were killed in mass shootings? Do you REALLY see that as an "epidemic?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

About 1 to 2%.
Yes, we have a mass shooting epidemic. And tell me this isn't an epidemic we have on our hands.

300,000,000
1-2%
=
3,000,000-6,000,000

So 3-6 million people have been killed in mass shooting sprees this year?Posted via Mobile Device

Exactly, you have no idea. WTF does 50% of Americans having to be "directly affected" by gun homicide even mean? Everybody was affected by Newtown -- or does our sorrow not count because we're not related to them?

You don't know what line in the sand you'd draw, because you want to retain your ability to move the goalposts any time I present evidence as to how grotesque our gun homicide rates actually are. Yeah, well, they could be *worse*, right?

You really don't know what an epidemic is do you? So if someone gets xyz disease and EVERYONE IN THE WORLD is sad about it... then we have an epidemic of xzy disease according to you, right? See the problem? See why I said DIRECTLY?

Now if 50%+ of the world really knows someone who has xyz disease... we actually have an epidemic on our hands (yes, if it's the world it's a pandemic.. let's just keep it simple)

So, as i have stated, it is problem. 1 person dead is a problem. It is NOT a ****ing epidemic, no matter how much you and the liberal media cry and scream and rant.

What?? I am shrinking from nothing. I was saying the same thing all along if you could just keep up. Hence why I made the statements I just restated for you.

You had to correct yourself.

You claimed the statistics I provided weren't evidence. Then you had to correct yourself, and say it wasn't "viable" evidence. Which, is closer to being right, but it's still wrong, lest we bend the English language so badly as to render it meaningless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

I haven't said anything new here so don't you ****ing DARE try to make it out as if I am now changing my position when you simply couldn't follow along in the first place.

You were saying something new. You had to change your position when you realized your first position ("Direckshun's statistics weren't evidence") turned out to be hilariously wrong.

That's nothing to piss and moan about -- you corrected yourself in the name of greater accuracy. Something few on this forum do.

I know you're throwing a shitfit over it, but that's what you did.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

And NO it is not evidence to support your point. You point to "Western" cultures as if you have a ****ing clue.

We are a western culture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Have YOU ever lived anywhere other than the US? Hell, have you spent any significant time anywhere else?

I don't comment on my personal life on this forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

You simply ASSUME that they are cultural the same as us.. or close enough that the stats apply. Well, they aren't. Period. I can tell you story after story about my time overseas and the complete and utter lack of aggression... but of course you will need stats! Well sorry, I have yet to see a pysch study on the phenomenon. I actually have thought this would be an good topic to do studies on. My personal theory is that aggression is part genetic and a great deal of it has simply been bred out of Europe due to the nearly constant state of war they underwent for so many years and the mass amounts of young aggressors that dies before breeding. Totally a guess but it'd be interesting for someone to do a study to see if it has any validity.

Just as a warning for our future conversations:

When I present evidence, and you rebut it with "I think," "I have a story," "I'm guessing," "I have thought," "my personal theory"...

Sure you do. You believe we should perform background checks. That's a barrier.

The one different gun control idea you proposed, however, isn't a barrier, it's a beaded curtain.

You do understand we have 50% of the planet's guns, 300 million firearms in total.

If you think our problem is that we don't have enough guns in our society, you're simply living in Imagination Land.

I mispoke, I don't see erecting NEW barriers as a good thing. Better?

No I think we don't have enough armed TRAINED citizens CARRYING guns in our society. Please point out the mass killings where multiple armed, trained citizens were present and yet the assailant went unchecked until police arrived. Now do you see what I am after?

You really don't know what an epidemic is do you? So if someone gets xyz disease and EVERYONE IN THE WORLD is sad about it... then we have an epidemic of xzy disease according to you, right? See the problem? See why I said DIRECTLY?

Now if 50%+ of the world really knows someone who has xyz disease... we actually have an epidemic on our hands

You're just making this up as you go along.

50% of the people have to be directly affected by gun homicides? el oh el

Where are you getting this? I assume just yourself, since that tends to be your favorite resource.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

It is NOT a ****ing epidemic, no matter how much you and the liberal media cry and scream and rant.

You need to get your dick out of the "liberal media" pencil sharpener. My arguments have largely derived from police groups.

No I think we don't have enough armed TRAINED citizens CARRYING guns in our society. Please point out the mass killings where multiple armed, trained citizens were present and yet the assailant went unchecked until police arrived. Now do you see what I am after?

This research hasn't existed for a decade, I've actively sought it out, but the NRA squashes the CDC and NIH from conducting this exact kind of research (see the OP).

The only research we have is anecdotal, and it tells us that armed citizens almost never stop mass shootings. There are a handful that have been stopped by armed off-duty officers. There have also been several, including one relatively recently, where expert marksmen killed innocent bystanders by trying to fire on a mass shooter.

But the fact is: we don't have this research. Someone should start a thread about that...

You claimed the statistics I provided weren't evidence. Then you had to correct yourself, and say it wasn't "viable" evidence. Which, is closer to being right, but it's still wrong, lest we bend the English language so badly as to render it meaningless.

You were saying something new. You had to change your position when you realized your first position ("Direckshun's statistics weren't evidence") turned out to be hilariously wrong.

That's nothing to piss and moan about -- you corrected yourself in the name of greater accuracy. Something few on this forum do.

I know you're throwing a shitfit over it, but that's what you did.

It was not a correction you halfwit, it was an explanation because oftentimes (as was the case here) you are too ****ing stupid to get what was said the first time. That's on you not me.

I was correct all along. It is NOT evidence.

Quote:

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.

It does NOT prove anything because it doesn't apply to our culture. I later added "viable" to help you understand this point because you obviously missed it the first time.

So, is it all e words that you have trouble with? epidemic, evidence... did you lose that section of your dictionary?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

We are a western culture.

Yes we are, yet you say that like it has one ounce of meaning in this debate. It doesn't. I may as well say, we are in the Western Hemisphere therefore it only makes sense to compare our stats to other countries in our hemisphere!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

I don't comment on my personal life on this forum.

Well I guess you don;t have any first hand knowledge to relate to. You are like a blind man arguing with me over the color of the sky.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Direckshun

Just as a warning for our future conversations:

When I present evidence, and you rebut it with "I think," "I have a story," "I'm guessing," "I have thought," "my personal theory"...

The last bit was something I find interesting... not something to be part of the debate. I have no clue if my theory holds water, I just think it's fun to think about.

As for the "I have a story" part, I have FIRST HAND knowledge of this.. hence the stories. You can try to assert your Western Culture crap all you want... it doesn't in any way prove that we are psychologically similar (in this regard) to most other "Western" nations. We aren't. You probably don;t believe that, but then again, you don't have any first hand knowledge to refute it.

50% of the people have to be directly affected by gun homicides? el oh el

Where are you getting this? I assume just yourself, since that tends to be your favorite resource.

yes I am getting it from myself. You asked what it would take FOR ME to consider it an epidemic. That's what it would take FOR ME.

Where do you get your idea that it is NOW an epidemic.. oh that's right... from YOU. You sure as hell didn't get it from any reasonable person's definition of what a ****ing epidemic actually is.

BTW, at least I offered up a measurable figure. YOU on the other hand just cry and whine that whatever we have right NOW is an epidemic. So what is your number jackass? At what metric do we drop below that it is NOT an epidemic? So don't you try to preach to me about not nailing down a number.. when it is in fact your hypocritical ass that is failing to do so.

BTW you completely failed to address being called out on your definition of an epidemic being anything we ****ing hear about and get sad over... what a ****ing joke.

So in 1985 pretty much all of America was sad about the Challenger explosion.. I guess that year we had space shuttle explosion epidemic? right?

It was not a correction you halfwit, it was an explanation because oftentimes (as was the case here) you are too ****ing stupid to get what was said the first time. That's on you not me.

I was correct all along. It is NOT evidence.

Well you have now gone from "the statistics you presented aren't evidence," to "okay, they're evidence, they're just not viable (which I've been saying from the start!" back to "they're not evidence."

Two alternate conclusions one could draw: 1. You don't know what evidence is. 2. You're just squirming because you have no where to go on this particular point.

Edit: Clearly, squirming is the answer, since you decided to only present one potential definition of "evidence" from dictionary.com.

Tell me AC -- what was definition #3? Care to copy and paste that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

It does NOT prove anything because it doesn't apply to our culture.

You have yet to really back this up with anything other than unverifiable bullshit that you think you think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Yes we are, yet you say that like it has one ounce of meaning in this debate. It doesn't.

If you're arguing that the United States is incapable of being compared to any other Western nation...

...then that is a position you're welcome to have. But I'm guessing almost nobody else outside of the NRA cocoon shares it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Well I guess you don;t have any first hand knowledge to relate to.

You wouldn't know that information, because I haven't provided it. You have chosen to make an assumption, which you were going to do anyway if I had provided an answer.

Here's another tip: don't ask questions when you're just going to believe your own version of the answer. You have no idea who I am, that is by design.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

The last bit was something I find interesting... not something to be part of the debate. I have no clue if my theory holds water, I just think it's fun to think about.

As for the "I have a story" part, I have FIRST HAND knowledge of this.. hence the stories. You can try to assert your Western Culture crap all you want... it doesn't in any way prove that we are psychologically similar (in this regard) to most other "Western" nations. We aren't. You probably don;t believe that, but then again, you don't have any first hand knowledge to refute it.

First hand knowledge is important in some realms, but it's not useful online, where we can simply make up shit about ourselves and it's completely unverifiable.

Edit: Not to mention your experience might not necessarily have been remotely representative. Again, I'm just not interested in this line of arguing because it's not verifiable.